Redskins trading out of the 4 spot?

[BigHairedAristocrat]

While I think the idea of keeping Campbell around for atleast a year has some merit, if the Shanahans have decided that he's not the QB of the future, and theyre going to draft a QB of the future, then they need to move Campbell now. While i'd like to get more than a 3rd and a 5th for him, the reality is that if we draft Bradford at 4, Campbells trade value plumets. And if we kept Campbell until 2011, we wouldnt get anything for him at all. In the past, we've held on to guys too long and its come back to bite us.(Remember, the Dolphins offered us a 1st rounder for Ramsey. 1 season later, we let him go for a 6th, if i remember properly). If the decision has been made that Campbell is not the long-term answer here, then lets move him now. Better a year too soon than a year too late.

[johno]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

If the decision has been made that Campbell is not the long-term answer here, then lets move him now. Better a year too soon than a year too late.

well said BHA, i never thought about it like that. if we plan on drafting our future qb at 4, and Campbell is a UFA at the end of next season, why not get some value out of him now? if campbell is only to be a body to take hits until bradford/clausen is ready, that shouldnt be hard to find in FA.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

While I think the idea of keeping Campbell around for atleast a year has some merit, if the Shanahans have decided that he's not the QB of the future, and theyre going to draft a QB of the future, then they need to move Campbell now. While i'd like to get more than a 3rd and a 5th for him, the reality is that if we draft Bradford at 4, Campbells trade value plumets. And if we kept Campbell until 2011, we wouldnt get anything for him at all. In the past, we've held on to guys too long and its come back to bite us.(Remember, the Dolphins offered us a 1st rounder for Ramsey. 1 season later, we let him go for a 6th, if i remember properly). If the decision has been made that Campbell is not the long-term answer here, then lets move him now. Better a year too soon than a year too late.

Jason's situation could become complex depending on the type year he has if he's the SQB in 2010. If we draft a Bradford or Clausen and Jason has a pro-bowl type season his value will increase considerably with or without a new CBA. We could have another Champ Bailey type situation on our hands because no way will he want to stay here. So maybe moving him now, with the circumstances being what they are would be best if there's an equitable deal out there.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

Jason's situation could become complex depending on the type year he has if he's the SQB in 2010. If we draft a Bradford or Clausen and Jason has a pro-bowl type season his value will increase considerably with or without a new CBA. We could have another Champ Bailey type situation on our hands because no way will he want to stay here. So maybe moving him now, with the circumstances being what they are would be best if there's an equitable deal out there.

The chances of Jason Campbell putting up the best performance of his career and playing at a pro-bowl level in a new offensive system with no #4 draft pick caliber LT to help protect him (we're drafting a QB at 4 in this scenario) are slim to none. If Campbell were capeable of that type of performance, we wouldnt want to move him anyway.

There's an old saying half a sure thing is better than twice of nothing. the chances of us getting alot more from him next year don't outweigh the risk that we could get alot lets. we should take what we can get for him now, cut our losses, and move on.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

The chances of Jason Campbell putting up the best performance of his career and playing at a pro-bowl level in a new offensive system with no #4 draft pick caliber LT to help protect him (we're drafting a QB at 4 in this scenario) are slim to none. If Campbell were capeable of that type of performance, we wouldnt want to move him anyway.

There's an old saying half a sure thing is better than twice of nothing. the chances of us getting alot more from him next year don't outweigh the risk that we could get alot lets. we should take what we can get for him now, cut our losses, and move on.

Yeah, a pro-bowl type season for him was hypothetical thinking and believe me I really meant it to sound that way.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

Yeah, a pro-bowl type season for him was hypothetical thinking and believe me I really meant it to sound that way.

Maybe I missed something but you did say SQB 2010. So what does SQB stand for? I took it to mean if JC becomes the Superbowl QB in 2010. I almost laughed. I'll eat almost whatever I have to eat but no way does JC become the 2010 SQB. It would be a major feet going from 4-12 to the SB and I guess it would make for a pretty bed time story but I don't see it.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

The chances of Jason Campbell putting up the best performance of his career and playing at a pro-bowl level in a new offensive system with no #4 draft pick caliber LT to help protect him (we're drafting a QB at 4 in this scenario) are slim to none. If Campbell were capeable of that type of performance, we wouldnt want to move him anyway.

There's an old saying half a sure thing is better than twice of nothing. the chances of us getting alot more from him next year don't outweigh the risk that we could get alot lets. we should take what we can get for him now, cut our losses, and move on.

I really don't see Shanahan gambling his first year with the Redskins by either depending solely on Campbell without having a young QB in the wings or throwing a rook QB to the fire from day one.

The team should move him if a good offer comes along, if not then we should keep him and make him our starter until a rookie is ready. I don't understand why would want to settle for mediocre compensation for him.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

While I think the idea of keeping Campbell around for atleast a year has some merit, if the Shanahans have decided that he's not the QB of the future, and theyre going to draft a QB of the future, then they need to move Campbell now. While i'd like to get more than a 3rd and a 5th for him, the reality is that if we draft Bradford at 4, Campbells trade value plumets. And if we kept Campbell until 2011, we wouldnt get anything for him at all. In the past, we've held on to guys too long and its come back to bite us.(Remember, the Dolphins offered us a 1st rounder for Ramsey. 1 season later, we let him go for a 6th, if i remember properly). If the decision has been made that Campbell is not the long-term answer here, then lets move him now. Better a year too soon than a year too late.

Ya know I didn't even factor this thought in. He won't have any value to us at all next yr since he will be a FA. I guess if I'm looking for more draft picks then moving JC is top issue. What bothers me is who would we bring in and would we be getting worse by trading out a Vet we already have for some one possibly worse.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Ya know I didn't even factor this thought in. He won't have any value to us at all next yr since he will be a FA. I guess if I'm looking for more draft picks then moving JC is top issue. What bothers me is who would we bring in and would we be getting worse by trading out a Vet we already have for some one possibly worse.

Which is why it doesn't make sense moving him for low compensation. At worst he can be a back up if he's yanked in mid-season.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Which is why it doesn't make sense moving him for low compensation. At worst he can be a back up if he's yanked in mid-season.

I think we are on the same page. I'd rather see a low 1st round draft pick or second round draft pick for JC. Hell he was a starter and honestly his stats do look good. For teams who wish they could get a Cutler, JC has similar stats.

If the trade value is not good enough then instead of going out hunting down a Vet FA then keep JC and let the Rookie learn the play book better. But I get tired of the whole don't throw the Rookie in. Look at Baltimore their Rookie had an awsome season and did well last yr also, the Jets almost made it to the SB with their Rookie QB, the Falcons have had two decent years with a Rookie. I don't see any problem putting whoever we draft on the field if he is better then JC. Plus we have a back up plan if the Rookie does not work out.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I think we are on the same page. I'd rather see a low 1st round draft pick or second round draft pick for JC. Hell he was a starter and honestly his stats do look good. For teams who wish they could get a Cutler, JC has similar stats.

If the trade value is not good enough then instead of going out hunting down a Vet FA then keep JC and let the Rookie learn the play book better. But I get tired of the whole don't throw the Rookie in. Look at Baltimore their Rookie had an awsome season and did well last yr also, the Jets almost made it to the SB with their Rookie QB, the Falcons have had two decent years with a Rookie. I don't see any problem putting whoever we draft on the field if he is better then JC. Plus we have a back up plan if the Rookie does not work out.

I think you can throw a rookie to the fire under good conditions, and honestly I don't know if our team has it. I think each of the teams that you mention above have things that we don't have or things that I am not sure how they are going to workout such as:

- Great offensive lines (Jets, Ravens)
- Solid running games (Falcons, Jets, Ravens)
- Elite defenses (Jets, Ravens)
- Good receiving corps (Jets, Falcons)

I know Atlanta seems to be a bit of an exception to the rule, but both the Jets and Ravens had really good situations for their rookie QB to thrive in, and honestly a lot of those areas that I mentioned above are either questionable or not good enough to be able to help a rookie QB succeed.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I think you can throw a rookie to the fire under good conditions, and honestly I don't know if our team has it. I think each of the teams that you mention above have things that we don't have or things that I am not sure how they are going to workout such as:

- Great offensive lines (Jets, Ravens)
- Solid running games (Falcons, Jets, Ravens)
- Elite defenses (Jets, Ravens)
- Good receiving corps (Jets, Falcons)

I know Atlanta seems to be a bit of an exception to the rule, but both the Jets and Ravens had really good situations for their rookie QB to thrive in, and honestly a lot of those areas that I mentioned above are either questionable or not good enough to be able to help a rookie QB succeed.

Ryan also appears to be the strongest of the three as a player, although with that said, 2010 is going to be a really critical year for his career. Being ahead of the curve as a rookie only takes you so far.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

What bothers me is who would we bring in and would we be getting worse by trading out a Vet we already have for some one possibly worse.

Jake Plummer.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Jake Plummer.

That's a joke right?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

That's a joke right?

I sure hope so, this is the second time I've seen his name brought up....unless we're looking for a top notch handball player, Jake ain't the guy.

Jake Plummer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plummer: Shanny firing "was past due" - The Denver Post

2010 free agent quarterback class has a surprise entry | ProFootballTalk.com